ravener

doesent have to be a saw either, a small dremmel is enough.

it aleredy does. the current reentry should be replaced, but there is no time.

tanks should have a damaged state too (was it you Kasuha that mad a post about this?). lets say a tank has 100 hp 90-100 undamaged, the tank is preforming flawlessly. 70-90 surface damage, the tank has some dents and fuel transfer is 50% slower. 50-70 minor leaking. not enough to drain the tank during a landing, but during the coast to the moon it would maybe drain 80% of the fuel. there is a small jet of fuel vapor escaping the tank 30-50 major leak. if you are lucky you may salvage a landing, but the fuel is truly guzzeling out now. 1-30 skeleton, the panels are blown off and the cryogenic tank is ruptured on two sides so you can see thrugh the large gap. 0 poof, all links to nearby tanks are severed and the skeleton floats away. -10 or more despawn the part. just my thoughts

I know there are liquid fuel tanks, but what if i'm building a spaceplane and only need slightly more liquid fuel? No sense in adding a whole liquid fuel tank, and just removing oxidizer from another tank is wasteful. As it stands we cant choose what to put in our tanks, we can choose what to exclude.

Ok, this isnt exactly what it sounds like, and i might be wrong. If you select a tank and remove all the oxidizer, the liquid fuel maximum stays the same. I think the liquid fuel capacity should go up as the oxidizer decreases. Why would you carry a 50% empty tank to space? If i am wrong and this is how it's done, sorry, it's late...

Iirc they dident drop it to make multiplayer, they dropped it because it felt less and less fun as a game. If they are lying or not is not for me to decide, but that is at least the official word.

yeah, this has been discussed to death. it might happen, but iirc harv said it would possibly be a post final release thing.

pretty conclusive results here... 100%.

just wondering, can i change conic patch draw modes ingame?

the lander can looks ugly in the middle of a ship, i get the people that want a shorter hitchhiker.

bump, this is a nobrainer if it is as simple as it seems... might not be though.

I think this is planned.

yes please

one would imagine ways around this. have the minigame always loaded as a part of the engine (just put that **** in the background ) and make ksp transparrent while loading. now you arent loading a minigame for the loading screen, you are just accessing it at a convenient time. basically, you sneak past the rules by implementing it in a suboptimal way. if you could in theory access it at any time it isnt a part of the loading screen. EDIT: i am not a law professor or anything, this might be utter bollocks.

even with a 90% loss i would use this for ion probes to lighten it up. i can afford to have ten times the panels on a station in LKO, but with panels to support an ion engine a probe becomes useless due to weight.

how about a folder in the atronaut complex called "on leave" where you can put kerbals you dont want in your rockets?

i'm ok with a 90% or even a 95% loss. it just gives me a reason to make HUGE power stations with relay lasers. the important part is that i can keep missions going without huge panels (less weight, more isp) and the ability to recharge dead sattelites when on the dark side. also, a laser powered rover would be interesting.

"perfectly fine" might be a bit mutch, it is adequate. it isnt in the same style as the tanks IMO either, it is rounder and uses a different colour scheme. AFAK a remodel is planned, probbably with a saner hatch placement.

"look cooler in general" huh, that is rather subjective. i personally like the b9 spotlights (at least i think that is where they are from... the 8 rectangular spots in a cluster?).

to be honest, i would rather not have a shuttle, the "improvements" would turn it closer and closer to a reusable third stage. just push the payload up there and come back for another run.

this is just to ease the reentry, those engines does not have to be that large and can burn the fuel left in the tank by the orbiter (a standard launch would leave some fuel in the tank as a safety mesure). you could spashdown with some parachutes. this is not too important though, the external tank could stay unpowered and burn on reentry.

when i said braking i was refering to re enering, the weight saving from removing the pressurized cockpit and tiles would let the shuttle reenter under lower, managable temperatures and could still be reused. also, the shuttle would be a lot more expendable, but reusing the engines, electronics and other shuttle systems. the point is to make it cheap to use and cheap to keep in service.

disclaimer: i am no rocket scientist and most, if not all of this is just ideas.i am unsure of the feasability of some of this. 1. get rid of the heavy tiles and rely on breaking higher up in the atmosphere like skylon plans to, here wings would actually be useful. if you are light enough and have large enough surface area the heating would be managable. a fireproof (over 300 degrees c) piece of paper could survive reentry in the same way. 2. no humans, the pressurized part of the shuttle+lifesupport is too heavy to justify taking into space again and again. 3. no closed cargo compartment, the cargo is put on the back of the shuttle and a light fairing is around it (think a half fairing stuck on where the cockpit and cargo compartment was on the shuttle). 4. only two engines, with the weight savings from the earlier points you could use only two engines. 5. single part SRB's. the increesed reliability of a single piece pressure vessel is vital, not only to save face, but to keep "reusable" in the space shuttle. we should do everything that can increase the time between accidents. 6. slightly more fuel on the shuttle compared to the orange tank. for the high atmosphere braking to work the shuttle needs to be low density and have a large area, if we had more fuel on the shuttle the empty tanks would be structurally strong enough to make both possible. 7. an engine cluster on the orange tank. with more fuel on the shuttle the external tank would be smaller, with an engine cluster to assist during launch we could have a kind of "grasshopper" external tank that brakes before reentry and could possibly survive reentry (with some watercooling of critical surfaces. with some of the load taken off the shuttle it can be slightly smaller and rely more on its orbital engines than LHO engines.

Personally i enjoyed the weekly more.

I, on the other hand DO want a deltaV meter. Maybe we could have all our stats in a collapsible sidebar or something of that nature.